CA 92

[Max Rockatansky]

Just finished up my blog post on the entirety of CA 92.  This is an interesting route given it has a mountain portion in the Santa Cruz Range, a significant bridge in the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and even an urban surface alignment on Jackson Street in downtown Hayward.  I was surprised to find out how long LRN 105 and even early CA 92 had a gap in San Mateo that wasn't really truly bridged until the 19th Avenue Freeway was completed.  Shame to not being able to walk on the 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge but the park around it was pretty nice.  Suffice to say that prospective extension to I-580 is dead as can be with recent relinquishments in Hayward.

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/02/california-state-route-92.html

The accompanying photo album can be found here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9wd82a

[sparker]

Just finished up my blog post on the entirety of CA 92.  This is an interesting route given it has a mountain portion in the Santa Cruz Range, a significant bridge in the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and even an urban surface alignment on Jackson Street in downtown Hayward.  I was surprised to find out how long LRN 105 and even early CA 92 had a gap in San Mateo that wasn't really truly bridged until the 19th Avenue Freeway was completed.  Shame to not being able to walk on the 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge but the park around it was pretty nice.  Suffice to say that prospective extension to I-580 is dead as can be with recent relinquishments in Hayward.

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/02/california-state-route-92.html

The accompanying photo album can be found here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9wd82a

The final nail in the coffin for any direct connection from CA 92 to I-580 near Castro Valley was the construction of multi-lane direct connectors from EB 92 to NB I-880, with traffic heading toward 580 directed north and eventually east on I-238.  The city of Hayward has done all in its power to divert through traffic, regardless of travel direction, away from downtown (specifically the multi-facility intersection at Mission & Jackson, formerly the junction of CA 92/185/238).  Simply put, all parties involved want freeway traffic to remain on the freeways; at present I-880 through Hayward and San Lorenzo is being upgraded to accommodate the traffic taking that "detour".  And to drive the point home, SB traffic on former CA 238 (Foothill Blvd.) has been diverted onto downtown streets, eventually spilling out onto former CA 185 to pass through the former multi-route junction -- more an arterial bypass than a "road diet".

[Max Rockatansky]

Just finished up my blog post on the entirety of CA 92.  This is an interesting route given it has a mountain portion in the Santa Cruz Range, a significant bridge in the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and even an urban surface alignment on Jackson Street in downtown Hayward.  I was surprised to find out how long LRN 105 and even early CA 92 had a gap in San Mateo that wasn't really truly bridged until the 19th Avenue Freeway was completed.  Shame to not being able to walk on the 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge but the park around it was pretty nice.  Suffice to say that prospective extension to I-580 is dead as can be with recent relinquishments in Hayward.

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/02/california-state-route-92.html

The accompanying photo album can be found here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9wd82a

The final nail in the coffin for any direct connection from CA 92 to I-580 near Castro Valley was the construction of multi-lane direct connectors from EB 92 to NB I-880, with traffic heading toward 580 directed north and eventually east on I-238.  The city of Hayward has done all in its power to divert through traffic, regardless of travel direction, away from downtown (specifically the multi-facility intersection at Mission & Jackson, formerly the junction of CA 92/185/238).  Simply put, all parties involved want freeway traffic to remain on the freeways; at present I-880 through Hayward and San Lorenzo is being upgraded to accommodate the traffic taking that "detour".  And to drive the point home, SB traffic on former CA 238 (Foothill Blvd.) has been diverted onto downtown streets, eventually spilling out onto former CA 185 to pass through the former multi-route junction -- more an arterial bypass than a "road diet".

That's the split A Street split between Mission and Foothill?   I thought that was a strange alignment as traffic on Foothill was moving just fine past A Street in a two-way configuration.  It would to me that it probably would have been to Hayward's benefit to keep Jackson and Foothill as a State Highway given that the flow of the freeway is essentially a direct line east of I-880.  Mission and 185 were made sense to me given how much that road really is just a normal city street with little capacity. 

[sparker]

What is equally interesting is that the original section of Mission north of the multi-way intersection, part of the old LRN 105, was never a SSR; after US 101E disappeared from the scene in the '30's, SSR 9 was extended north from Milpitas over what is or was now CA 238 to US 50 at the current 580/238 interchange, where it terminated.  As a kid, I had always wondered why, pre-renumbering and after that freeway was built, that the Division never extended SSR 9 back over the (now) I-238 freeway to terminate at (then) SSR 17; that freeway never carried field numbering until 1964.  But the original path of SSR 17 pre-Nimitz Freeway was up LRN 69, which passed through the west side of Hayward on Hesperian Blvd., turned left (west) on Lewelling Blvd. a little under a mile to Washington Street, where it turned right/north to another regional multi-street intersection in downtown San Leandro.  SSR 17 then segued north onto East 14th Street (the northern extension of Mission) into downtown Oakland; also, Davis St. (current CA 112) went west from that intersection to Doolittle Drive, then north to Alameda.  That too remained without SSR signage until after '64 -- although Caltrans lore, as related to me by my cousin who retired from the agency back in the '90's, has it that the Alameda "loop", now mostly CA 61, was, just prior to WWII, slated to receive signage as SSR 13 (grid-appropriate under the old numbering system) -- but the city of Alameda balked at that "unlucky" number, so the state-maintained route through that city remained unsigned for 20+ more years.       

[kurumi]

... although Caltrans lore, as related to me by my cousin who retired from the agency back in the '90's, has it that the Alameda "loop", now mostly CA 61, was, just prior to WWII, slated to receive signage as SSR 13 (grid-appropriate under the old numbering system) -- but the city of Alameda balked at that "unlucky" number, so the state-maintained route through that city remained unsigned for 20+ more years.       

According to Richard Beal (http://www.beal-net.com/hwy17/), the same thing happened for Highway 17, and Dan Faigin's site (https://www.cahighways.org/009-016.html#013) corroborates: around 1936, CA 13 was renumbered to 17. Beal's book notes resistance from towns along 17 to the number 13.

[bing101]

https://www.kqed.org/news/11958879/the-first-san-mateo-hayward-bridge-was-a-big-deal-in-1929

Here is one and it's getting attention the original San Mateo bridge from 1929.

[The Ghostbuster]

CA 92 is completely freeway between Interstate 280 to Interstate 880, unlike its San Francisco Bay Crossing parallel route CA 84. I imagine the Dumbarton (CA 84) and the San Mateo-Hayward Bridges (CA 92) are very congested due to their being the only Bay Crossings save for the Interstate 80 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. I always thought the San Francisco Bay should have had more bridge crossings. Where to put those additional bridge crossings is another discussion.

[DTComposer]

Check the Southern Crossing Wikipedia article to see just how many proposals there have been. The one that roadgeeks seem to favor is the I-380 extension to I-238, but that crosses the widest and deepest part of the Bay, causes problems for both San Francisco and Oakland airports, and doesn't really solve the regional problem - while they can get congested during rush hours, the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges and CA-237 (as a "land crossing") do an adequate job connecting the East Bay to the Peninsula.

What's really needed is more connections in/out of San Francisco itself: Potrero Point to Alameda and/or Telegraph Hill to Emeryville.

[TheStranger]

What's really needed is more connections in/out of San Francisco itself: Potrero Point to Alameda and/or Telegraph Hill to Emeryville.

That was the proposal that existed in the 1960s and 1970s - a connection to Oakland from Cesar Chavez (Army) Street eastward to Alameda - and from planning maps I've seen online, would have connected I-980 to Alameda/Route 61
The Southern Crossing: A Brief Report (1971) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=A_Brief_History_of_Cesar_Chavez/Army_Street offers the perspective of those opposed to this being built, including the Sierra Club fighting the project ca. 1972 when it was still an active proposal.  Here's a state highway map excerpt from that era:



Meanwhile, at dinner Wednesday night, the rush hour congestion along US 101 and I-80 from I-280 to the bridge was pretty obvious and not exactly atypical of the area, I do remember pre-pandemic that the rush to get from SF to Oakland via 80 started to get bad in the mid-afternoon.

[theroadwayone]

How many more bridges would the Bay Area need to give NY or Pittsburgh a run for it's money?

[DTComposer]

I enjoy the plan to simply lop off the top off Yerba Buena Island and make a giant rotary to connect four bridges:


(Proposed Master Plan of Toll Crossings: Yerba Buena Island rotary (1950), by Erica Fischer on Flickr)

BTW, for those who don't know, Erica's Flickr account is a treasure trove of Bay Area bridge and highway planning maps and plans.

[thsftw]

What's really needed is more connections in/out of San Francisco itself: Potrero Point to Alameda and/or Telegraph Hill to Emeryville.

That was the proposal that existed in the 1960s and 1970s - a connection to Oakland from Cesar Chavez (Army) Street eastward to Alameda - and from planning maps I've seen online, would have connected I-980 to Alameda/Route 61
The Southern Crossing: A Brief Report (1971) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=A_Brief_History_of_Cesar_Chavez/Army_Street offers the perspective of those opposed to this being built, including the Sierra Club fighting the project ca. 1972 when it was still an active proposal.  Here's a state highway map excerpt from that era:



Meanwhile, at dinner Wednesday night, the rush hour congestion along US 101 and I-80 from I-280 to the bridge was pretty obvious and not exactly atypical of the area, I do remember pre-pandemic that the rush to get from SF to Oakland via 80 started to get bad in the mid-afternoon.

If you notice the very bottom of that second photo - 92 was supposed to go over Crystal Springs reservoir as a freeway bridge (why it takes such an abrupt 2 lane swerve now)

[pderocco]

<sarcasm>
Maybe they should just fill most of the bay. Then they could build all the roads they want. And think of all the valuable real estate they'd create.
</sarcasm>

[Max Rockatansky]

There was a plan to actually do just that.  Kernals12 would most certainly approve:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reber_Plan#:~:text=The%20Reber%20Plan%20was%20a%20late%201940s%20plan,by%20John%20Reber–an%20actor%2C%20theatrical%20producer%2C%20and%20schoolteacher.

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/second-bay-bridge-plans-history-freeway-alameda-sf-14018498.php

[Quillz]

I know not everyone is on board with environmentalism, but I'm glad a lot of these projects to dam/fill in everything have been left in the past (for now). Around the same time as that plan, there was a plan to build a huge dam in Alaska that would have basically eliminated the Yukon River floodplains (today a state park).

[Max Rockatansky]

The 1940s were very much in the era of where man conquering nature was viewed a good thing.

[Quillz]

The 1940s were very much in the era of where man conquering nature was viewed a good thing.

*And actually feasible and sustainable.

Yes, I've commented on this before. It seems WWII/late 1940s was the last time we had this "we can do anything, anywhere" mentality. Seen with the "let's draw lines on a map and figure out later how to actually build them" on some early road maps.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really the great barrier to was 1970 when CEQA and NEPA became a factor.  If a project was already shovels in the ground before then was likely getting completed.  The Division of Highways started taking public comments seriously towards the end of the 1950s.  Some of the hearings are even briefed in CHPWs.